Microsoft's New Update Policy

For this to make sense IMHO you have to remember that Microsoft is a large corp. bureaucracy, complete with feudal lords & their kingdoms. And basically it's caused MS to sort of step in it...

Likely teed off at how many people never installed, or installed & removed the update to 10 garbage in win7/8, MS removed some of the pages on their site detailing what was going to appear on Update Tuesday, delayed publishing that info [those times it makes, that info available], and most recently decided to bundle updates into one patch file rather than several. The only somewhat good news about that is that eventually MS promises to make those update packages completely cumulative, so if you (re)install Windows one update gets you current.

Problem is: to even begin to get that to work you have to be able to trust the individual update packages, & MS had made it obvious that you cannot... they still haven't fixed the Anniversary Update so it works for everyone, & later updates this month broke millions of webcams & broke Power Shell, among other snafus. So to be safest you have to avoid Windows Updates entirely until it's clear that nothing you rely on breaks, which is the opposite effect of what MS hoped for, with millions of Windows installs without any of the latest patches rather than just missing one or two.

Came across this article that, as I read it anyway, shares some of my concerns about Microsoft's new update policies &/or methods.

Many people, myself included, expect Microsoft nowadays to be somewhat lazy if not inept, less honest and trustworthy, & the sort of company looking to exploit, trick, force, & possibly abuse their customers if/when someone(s) at the company feels it would be to their benefit. Personally I think MS looked at companies making billions of dollars providing somewhat shoddy goods &/or services, companies with abusive attitudes towards their customers or users, and basically figured: "Why should we bother?" And thus we have the new Microsoft.

The old Microsoft produced Windows 7 -- the new Microsoft not only dislikes 7, but perhaps loathes it as representative of all that they've actively abandoned. The market never took to Vista or 8, so there's nothing there to bother MS. XP was widely pirated, so hanging on to it can be understood, just like technology challenged, perhaps even backwards agencies & companies continuing to use it, so not so much there worth hating.

Round one was the efforts to get people running 7 to upgrade to 10. Round 2 was big delays on Update Tuesday -- a practice that's now ended, proving it was artificially induced. Round 3 is making it harder for biz to continue using 7 with their newest update policies & procedures.

People can reasonably expect that Microsoft will push patches or updates via Windows Update that will break things. You can expect MS to Not publish details or notice in advance. That's been their recent record or history for the past several months [with win7-10], with the only signs out of MS indicating we'll get even more of the same. That's not saying Microsoft won't change in the future -- only that at the moment there doesn't seem any reason big enough yet to capture their attention.

Lots of people don't & won't care, so don't expect lots of negative published reports. It's easier frankly to make money off that portion of the population, so much [most?] of what you read online will tend to favor rosy headlines as far as Microsoft is concerned. Those who expect less are both easier to satisfy & more willing to give up their time & money, so as low hanging fruit they will be the most pursued by whatever web sites. Put another way, if you find stuff like what Microsoft's doing upsetting, you're far from alone, but people with higher standards are by definition harder to please, so less catered to.

Because the old CEO at Microsoft wanted, as he very publicly announced, to be Apple.

and I can't really decide if it means:
(a) they never get complaints from Apple users so they want the Apple user base.
(b) Apple users take what Apple gives them and they like it!
(c) they forget that Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy because they gave their users too much of what they didn't like (while stating how much they liked it!)

Even as Apple was failing they had a fiercely loyal fan base which Microsoft has never had. Granted, that loyal fan base didn't buy anything but they were/are rabid to the Apple Core. Apple crept back into the market with products people wanted (and actually bought). Microsoft took products off the market that people wanted and bought (XP, Win7) for products people didn't want and won't buy (Vista, Win8, Win10, Win Infinity). I guess they're working on (c) and have some fantastic new product just waiting in the wings that will propel them to fame and fortune. Or, they're just idiots.

I've been puzzling over the comment you posted on another thread
Because the old CEO at Microsoft wanted, as he very publicly announced, to be Apple.

Ballmer wanted to smash Apple, & he wanted Microsoft to copy Apple, to be another Apple -- sort of a messed up love/hate thing, but then Ballmer was never shy when it came to telling the world what he thought. Apple created & owned the market with their iPod, so Zune. They repeated that success with the iPhone, so Windows Phone. Apple's physical stores meant Microsoft stores -- their online store meant the Windows store, complete with win8 to drive dev interest. Ballmer laid the groundwork for the Surface & its ads targeting the iPad etc. People argue over the benefits of the Surface to Microsoft as a company, maybe forgetting it was decreed back when the iPad came out & was a success.

All your choices re: "Why?" make sense. :) It reminds me of all those movies where you have the Homecoming Queen that's snobbish &/or of lower intellect &/or is lacking in several ways, and you have someone else without those negative qualities who's always overlooked, & jealous &/or stung by the injustice of it all. Apple & Jobs were sexy -- Microsoft with Ballmer, overweight, balding, loud, & sweat-soaked, not so much.

TO many [most?] sellers All customers are idiots -- many in retail think of them as animals, & *some* of the masses live up to that promise on Black Friday. There's most often little or no difference in the designer-type brands at the most expensive store vs. similar or knockoffs elsewhere. When it comes to vehicles, a Kia will get you to the grocery store & back every bit as well as a Lincoln or Mercedes, & likely more reliably than a Jag. And the kicker... it's the more common sense folks buying the cheaper or cheapest goods that cause the most grief, & quite often it's unjustified.

So yeah, people buying Apple products are often idiots because they could get the same functions for less $. Apple OTOH is brilliant because it attracts the best customers, folks who will pay whatever price to get what they want, & don't complain afterwards. It often costs Apple less to make more money, which I think is part of what drove Ballmer nuts.

It's kinda interesting IMHO that in some ways Nadella [the current MS CEO] is much closer to Jobs than Ballmer could ever be... it could be reasonably argued I think that both shared a unflattering view of the lower caste multitudes, though Jobs wanted them to buy & Nadella seems to often wish they'd just go away.

Apple OTOH is brilliant because it attracts the best customers, folks who will pay whatever price to get what they want, & don't complain afterwards. It often costs Apple less to make more money, which I think is part of what drove Ballmer nuts.

I'd say that a bit differently: Apple's marketing is brilliant because it says buying Apple is a positive and fulfilling life-style choice.

It's really not about the product, it's about being part of the in-crowd. Buy an iPhone and you're suddenly part of the best, brightest and coolest group of people to have ever said "Hello?". How could the best and brightest buy an inferior product? It's not possible, that's just foolish talk.

What t I think really drove Ballmer nuts was that Steve Jobs and his crew were hip Geeks while Bill Gates and his gang were uncool Nerds. The odious Surface ads are Microsoft playing at being the perception of Apple (what all the cool kids are doing) where they should just be practical, efficient, and technologically superior (adults). Microsoft just won't accept that most of the Apple mystique is media driven and that the media are children who see Microsoft as their parents and Apple as the rebellious teen they would have been had they the courage to rebel.

There's nothing wrong with letting Apple do all the R&D but Microsoft should follow them with the message that their tech is cheaper and better. Let Apple have the very small "hip crowd" and take the vastly larger adult crowd. But, no, Ballmer (and Microsoft) have an inferiority complex so they have to compete for the same niche market where they have zero chance of winning and all of us adults lose in the process.

It's really not about the product, it's about being part of the in-crowd.

IMHO that's 100% accurate, and that's what makes the best marketing approach, as long as you can pull it off. Some people are immune, so other types of advertising etc. do work, but then you get into the often dangerous territory of product comparisons. Good marketing people can twist words to make anything sound like a plus, sometimes even defects or bad engineering. Tech people CAN'T be in marketing or sales because they see [& say] things as they are, plus their level of knowledge means that most of what they say flies right over the heads of prospective buyers.

What t I think really drove Ballmer nuts was that Steve Jobs and his crew were hip Geeks while Bill Gates and his gang were uncool Nerds.

:) :) I take issue with the word *were*. :) :)
Post Microsoft Gates 1) might have found religion as they used to say, or 2) might be trying to buy his way into heaven -- your choice -- but I've seen nothing hinting that the man himself has changed much, if at all. When I Google Tim Cook I get 105 million hits to Satya Nadella's 486k -- Steve Jobs 137 million vs. Steve Ballmer 412k. I take that as a very rough *cool* rating more than media bias, since Trump, the guy the media loves to hate, outdoes Clinton in number of Google hits, though of course I could be wrong in my analysis.

The odious Surface ads are Microsoft playing at being the perception of Apple (what all the cool kids are doing) where they should just be practical, efficient, and technologically superior (adults). Microsoft just won't accept that most of the Apple mystique is media driven...

I agree. The problem is that most adults aren't practical etc... if they were, consumer sales figures across the board would drop off a cliff.

There's nothing wrong with letting Apple do all the R&D but Microsoft should follow them with the message that their tech is cheaper and better...

That certainly has worked in the cell phone market, where Google has come out on top with Android.

But, no, Ballmer (and Microsoft) have an inferiority complex so they have to compete for the same niche market where they have zero chance of winning and all of us adults lose in the process.

Bravo!
I like that Microsoft came out with their Surface line, but only because as my son pointed out, there's a fair chance 10 wouldn't have such a small foot print & work so well on under-specced hardware otherwise. Beyond that very small niche, IMHO MS wasted tons of resources & lost sales with 8, leading to Wall St. pressure causing their board to push hard to move away from anything Windows.

8 & 10 are basically 7, with slight improvements under the hood -- they could have made more improvements if they had concentrated just on that, rather than their touch interface & store, & people would have wanted to pay to upgrade, rather than forcing MS to bury the cost in lost sales of making 10 free. The touch-centric design & store were designed to enable MS to throw away billions buying Nokia, then firing everyone that worked for Nokia, causing economic havoc. All of it just to enter a new, already saturated market, when & where MS has historically failed at entering new markets.

And we're the collateral damage. Microsoft with the exception of the Xbox has never been able to do hardware, & it's debatable whether the actual money spent producing the Xbox & Surface line was/is financially worth it. Resources spent on those 2 lines, plus lost sales of 8 & 10, contributed to [if they didn't directly cause] the layoffs of Windows development staff. And THAT can be blamed for Windows lack of quality when it comes to new releases, updates, & patches, as well as servicing problems upgrading & updating.

I'm afraid we'll also be hurt by Microsoft's desire, & potential change in directions to become Google. They've already invested billions in Bing [& related tech] over the years. They are very actively investing in Android & iOS app development. But what maybe bothers me more is the support aspect... Microsoft & Apple supported their older OS versions in order to sustain their eco systems, to make people & companies want to invest in newer versions or products. The Google model doesn't. And it not only survives, but it's a bigger success in mobile than either MS or Apple. Yes, that's not yet PCs, though with Chromebooks Google may be headed there, but the MS board already wants MS to start backing away from the PC market. And going back to the days when you had to upgrade hardware to keep the OS & software current would make the hardware related industries ecstatic -- likely one reason [if not The reason] phone sales are the only bright spot right now.